HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Listening Notes and Letters March 1-5 2020
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
Listening Session Notes
Planned Unit Development / Natural Resources Standards Proposed Amendments
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Date: March 3, 2020
Time & Location: 7 pm, South Burlington City Hall
Planning Commission members present: Monica Ostby, Ted Riehle, Jessica Louisos
Staff present: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
Attendees: Tom Bailey, Andrew Chalnick, Allan Strong, Ray Gonda, Curt Montgomery, Ed Von Turkovich,
Frank Von Turkovich, Evan Langfeldt, Andrew Gill, Mike Simoneau, Peter Kahn, Chris Jensen
Summary:
• Overview of the work of an informal housing working group:
Tom Bailey provided a summary of a housing working’s group’s efforts to look at undeveloped
parcels in the city. They’ve examined 63 to date – many of the same parcels examined by the Open
Space IZ Committee – and are examining their development potential. They have looked at water,
sewer, and natural gas infrastructure in the City and used the Planning Commission’s Hazards and
Level 1 resources to establish where development would not likely take place.
Staff was asked if the water, sewer, and natural gas data could be put in the interactive map viewer.
Staff to follow up
• Habitat Blocks & Supporting habitat
Andrew Chalnick inquired about the scope of the Arrowwood Study and asked whether should it
include more on the connections between habitat blocks.
Allan Strong spoke about the Habitat Blocks and supporting habitat. He indicated that supporting
habitat was in some respects as a "buffer" to a certain extent. Chris Jensen indicated that in her
reading of the report, the forest blocks themselves included a buffer from development.
Frank Von Turkovich said he would like to learn more about factors in establishing the Habitat
Blocks, especially predator species. He noted that the presenters had indicated that they could live,
hunt, eat, but not breed. He indicated that he has been talking to wildlife experts about viability of
the concept of having predator species thrive in an urban setting. Also looking at deer and problems
of deer concentrations in urban environments.
Peter Kahn said that it seems like what's been missing in this analysis is what is available to be built -
an analysis of likely units and from that, a baseline and when apply new PUD standards and habitat
blocks. Seems like that would be essential.
2
Mr. Kahn recommended using an engineer to look what could realistically be done.H recommended
not just using straight math. Straight math gives a false high on likely development, where in reality
there are roads, open spaces, and other factors that lead to less total development on a parcel.
• Staff was asked to provide a summary of where the Commission is so far on habitat blocks
Curt Montgomery said that in his review of Article 12 (dated November 2019), it shows Habitat
Blocks as being unusable for transfer of density.
Ms. Louisos indicated that has been updated, that development potential in intended to be able to
be transferred within a PUD.
• Habitat Blocks and Regulation
Andrew Gill asked whether the Commission has considered an approach similar to Act 250 where
the habitat block's values are protected but the development may continue. Could even include a
payment for impacts like the Prime Ag soils.
Mr. Bailey recommended that the Commission consider time as a factor. How do we want the
habitat blocks to evolve in our city in the future?
Mr. Gill said that in speaking with other on this, have discussed how the mortality rate for predator
species. Should maybe consider this - proximity to major roadways - as a factor.
Mr. Strong said that it’s important to note that the Arrowwood Report and the Open Space
Committee have relatively similar results. Some similar criteria, some different. These are the most
important areas in the City.
Mr. Strong recommended it be considered that while wildlife is an important factor, also water
quality and other reasons to consider conservation. Recommend think about conservation PUDs
adjacent to these areas. Possibly TDR sending areas. Possibly right of first refusal. Mr. Von Turkovich
said that if this moving in the direction, then that's good. Concerned about simply regulating out of
value. If can reconcile the habitat and the other values - housing - then that would be very good.
Mr. Riehle said - would like to have be a project where there's buy-in across the board. Using the
Inclusionary Zoning as a model.
Evan Langfeldt said all the developers in this room want to build smartly, including natural
resources. Support a collaborative approach.
Mr. Bailey inquired about the source of original NRP zoning, and asked whether the Planning
Commission would consider updating it a part of this?
• Mr. Gill asked what is current thinking on prime ag soils and on steep slopes.
Ms. Louisos said that these would need to be visited soon.
The listening session concluded at 8:20 pm.
Attached to this listening session are two documents:
1. Map shown by Mr. Bailey; 2. Letter from Sandy Dooley, who could not attend in person
1
Paul Conner
From:Sandra Dooley <dooleyvt1@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2020 7:12 PM
To:Jessica Louisos; 'monica ostby'
Cc:Paul Conner; Cathyann LaRose; 'John Simson'; vbolduc@smcvt.edu; thomasbracken802@gmail.com;
lblack-plumeau@vhfa.org
Subject:EXTERNAL: Input for this evening's PC meeting
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hello Jessica and Monica,
I will not be attending this evening’s PC meeting as I just got home from working at the
polls and am exhausted.
Here are my comments:
1. Please reconsider your tentative support for not allowing any density or TDR
value for the properties or portions of properties that are protected from
development due to high value as natural resources. Perhaps, you do not want
to give these properties the same base density value as the non-protected parts
of the property; for example, you might want to give these properties one-half the
base density value of the non-protected area. Why do I say this? Two
reasons: (1) Having protected natural resources on a property improves the
investment value of the property. If one were to compare similar developments
on two properties—one that includes a protected natural resource area to one
that does not, in my assessment the former would be more attractive to buyers
than the latter. My second reason is that we need housing and we need to keep
stable or even increase the density allowed if we are to make a dent in
combatting the scarcity of housing available for purchase or rental in South
Burlington. If you place zero value in terms of transferrable density value on the
protected natural resource areas, then you have reduced the number of housing
units that can be built in South Burlington. This is directly in opposition to what is
needed to address the housing crisis. Much of the housing affordability crisis is
caused by lack of supply relative to demand. If the PC were to give zero density
value to the undevelopable parts of the city, then you are in effect contributing to
the problem, which IMHO is not good City policy.
2
2. The second comment relates to a concept that Monica presented at our
affordable housing committee meeting this morning. That concept was that in
some areas of the City, the City might want to disallow the provision of bonus
units (as opposed to offset units) comparable to those available in the proposed
Transit Overlay District Inclusionary Zoning LDRs to developers that choose,
voluntarily, to build more affordable housing than is required. The maximum
achievable density allowed using offset and bonus units is 50% greater than the
base density. I strongly disagree with this concept. If my memory serves me
correctly, the maximum base density permitted in the SEQ is R7. Increasing this
by 50% would produce R10.5. Attractive housing developments can be built,
suitable for specified areas of the SEQ, using the R10.5 density maximum. To
make this level of density consistent with smart growth principles, the LDRs
might require that any density increase beyond that resulting from Offset units for
Inclusionary Housing be built in clusters. Again, not allowing the bonus units is
bad for three reasons: (1) it can be done in an aesthetically pleasing way, (2) not
to allow the bonus units limits the amount of affordable housing that might be
built; and (3) it also limits the allowable density which exacerbates the affordable
housing and overall housing shortage/crisis.
3. Basically, please be mindful that any policy that unnecessarily reduces allowable
density on properties that are appropriate for housing development is simply
contrary to what the City needs to address the affordably housing crisis.
Sandy
March 3, 2020
Kevin Dorn
City Manager
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
kdorn@sburl.com
(802) 846-4107
Dear Kevin:
As I'm sure you can appreciate, the recent presentation of the Open Space Report and the Habitat
Block Assessment and Ranking issued by the city's consultant, Arrowwood Environmental, have
raised significant concerns with property owners. As a result, a number of persons and entities
whose lands are affected by the proposals and/or who have concerns with the current direction
and process have decided to organize as a group to participate directly and with a singular voice,
and to organize interested parties and residents around good regulatory outcomes that account
for both the environmental and sustainability goals of the City, but also for the economic and
physical growth needed to sustain future generations of South Burlington, and to ensure a
sufficient tax base to maintain a degree of affordability for existing residents. The organization is
called "Smart Growth South Burlington."
Smart Growth's main purpose is to focus on the city's new planning and zoning initiatives to try
to help make them appropriate and fair.
Smart Growth South Burlington believes in the following principles:
• Fair Treatment. All property owners must be treated equitably; the city should not
threaten to "take" owners' properties without just compensation. The burden of new
regulations should not fall solely on the shoulders of a few property owners whose lands
have been targeted for novel experiments in urban planning, including use as "habitat"
for "predator species."
• Reasonable Growth. The city needs to embrace carefully planned initiatives to provide
new energy efficient housing for residents and their children in both the more urban and
the traditional neighborhood format. South Burlington needs to continue to be a great
community to establish or expand a business and to provide a for future job and
homestead opportunities for our children, not a place where vast sums of time and
money are spent to erect regulatory "walls" to keep newcomers out. It is unconscionable
that graduates of South Burlington's schools have to leave the community because new
housing development is so restricted and obstructed. South Burlington needs to promote
carefully planned growth to accommodate the needs of business and employers in order
to provide jobs and to generate the tax revenues to pay for the amenities that our
community wants to provide.
• Wild Animal Habitat. South Burlington should respect sound science-based practices that
recognize the risk to animals and residents from "habitat" creation plans. The city needs
to hear from residents before it takes action to encourage the migration of large numbers
of white tail deer into the city. Other communities in Vermont and throughout the
country are struggling to cope with the problems caused by rapidly expanding deer
populations. The city needs to hear from other experts and carefully assess the risks of
interactions between animals such as bobcat, fisher and coyotes and pets, adults and
children before it takes steps to promote the arrival of such predator species in corridors
designed to run through our existing neighborhoods.
• Environmental Protection and Ecological Responsibility. Pushing new development away
from the core areas of Chittenden County is unwise and unsustainable from an
environmental standpoint. South Burlington is home to many businesses and a large
percentage of the county's retail establishments. Preventing future residential
development close to those facilities and forcing employees and patrons to drive farther
on crowded roads is ecologically irresponsible.
The group has also decided to consolidate resources and engage legal counsel to analyze and
assess the members' legal rights which we believe are currently being overlooked. All of that
information will be offered to the city in a constructive and professional manner to try to achieve
a better outcome.
We know that the city has been willing to work with other ad-hoc groups in the past to deal with
matters of importance to the community. Smart Growth South Burlington stands ready to engage
constructively with the city to deal sensibly with these issues, and, to that end, is willing to bring
experts, ideas and energy to the table to help with the work. We sincerely hope that the city will
be willing to try to work with us, too.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions.
Sincerely,
Smart Growth South Burlington
Peter Kahn - Bartlett Real Estate, Curt Montgomery - Bartlett Real Estate,
Charlotte and Brad Gardner, Joe Larkin - Larkin Realty, Jeff Nick - JL Davis Realty, Evan
Langfeldt - O’Brien Brothers, Andrew Gill - O’Brien Brothers, Bob Bouchard - Pizzagalli
Properties, Frank and Ed von Turkovich - Spear & Swift Associates, Tom and Laura
O’Connell - Windjammer Hospitality Group